As far as it goes, this is a fairly useful and decent little book that does a good job in explaining what psychotherapy is, why it might be useful and what to expect from it (not too much, as it happens).
To be clear, this reviewer is not 'against' psychotherapy. On the contrary, I see it to be a very useful palliative if you have the time and money and, as a 'technology', it is more advanced than religion in dealing with at least some of the torments and questions of existence.
But I retain my doubts even after reading this very lucid explanation of its worth and methodology. Some of those doubts arise from the fact of the book itself. In a moment of lucidity, I realised that the 'School of Life' had cannily got me to pay £10.00 for the privilege of being marketed to.
For be in no doubt that the 'School of Life' is a business of sorts selling improved mental functioning the way that the late capitalist medical system sells physical healthcare or lawyers sell (in effect) survival or advantage in a complex social system.
And this is part of my problem with psychotherapy. It is not that it oversells (this book is clear and fair about its limitations) but that it sells at all. It is transactional and even mildly exploitative. It takes the tragedy of existence and intermediates through the illusion of the 'professonal'.
Or rather it would like to be seen as a 'profession', one that has earned the right to be so regarded after 100 years of practice and has its panoply of lineages, schools, certificates and so forth. But at the end of the day there is a person sitting there with a commercial pay-off - they sell their time.
No matter, if it works, of course. It can be a good living for some and it can certainly help many people in the process (though some will shell out the cash and get no further if they have the wrong therapist or attitude). It really is 'caveat emptor'. Maybe even a bit of a gamble.
But there are deeper suspicions. In a rare flash of self exposure, the book introduces us to the main one on page 37:
"This period of freedom [basically the unconditional love of the good enough parent, to use Bettelheim's term] prepares us one day to submit to the demands of society without having to rebel in self-defeating ways (rebels being at heart, people who have had to obey too much too early). We can knuckle down and tow the line when it's in our long term interest to do so."
Hmmmmm! The point goes on to seem reasonable, that Aristotelian balance between 'slavish compliance and self-destructive defiance' but a cat is let out of the bag. Inherent in 'bourgeois' psychotherapy is a tendency to submission to the given that is the world.
And that 'long term interest', what actually is it? Simple survival in a society as it is. Mastery of that society on 'our terms'? And what are 'our terms' if those terms are compromises with society.
Does not psychotherapy effectively try to square our emotional weaknesses with social conformity so that we are enabled to come to terms with (currently) late liberal capitalism but, in another age, Aztec blood sacrifice, negritude, social democracy or being a Catholic.
I know I am in a minority in our transactional age but I find all this cause for caution and I write as someone who has used psychotherapy three times in my life, found it useful, might well recommend it to others but not been seduced by some of its more quasi-spiritual implicit claims.
To say that it is useful as a tool is not, however, to accept the whole package at its own face value. What we have here is a business model wrapped in its own ideology and serving a cadre of professionals who cannot escape from the dominant culture of the time.
This comes out most clearly in the four case studies which a) show just how useful psychotherapy can be but also b) how it panders to the lack of self awareness of an international middle class which is scrabbling to cope with social conditions which they are not encouraged to question.
The silent listening of psychotherapy fascinates me - the precise opposite of the dialectic of Socrates - and I see how this works to build emotional awareness but it also blocks off the analytical element necessary to contextualise the workings of past experience in the present.
You are supposed to sit there waiting, after much time and money, to come to a self-questioning of 'why am I where I am' when a dynamic dialectical questioning of 'why am I where I am' might be not so much equally useful as central to the final answer.
The screening off of dialectical reason is understandable as far as process is concerned but the process may be flawed insofar as it discourages direct intervention with radical questioning of a current situation rather than reference back to causes that have consequences.
In other words, to the concerns as to its transactional nature and its tendency to adaptation to social order, I might add this doubt as to methodology (based on my own experience) - the lack of an element of dialectic.
Alhough I have rated it lowly because it classically borrowed my watch to tell me the time, I would still recommend the book - but get one copy, pass it around to people who might benefit from this simple account of the 'profession' and then ask your own critical questions about it and yourself.
I say about yourself advisedly because (until something better comes along that is not embedded in late liberal capitalist transactionalism) there are points of useful self-reflexion in this book and you may find the tool aspect of psychotherapy useful if you have sufficient time and leisure.